How to Write an RFP for a Port Sustainability Plan

EPA’s Clean Ports Program put $2.93 billion into 51 port grants, according to its awards page, and its program page lists the application period as closed. The next generation of port sustainability plans will be written without that money, which changes what a good RFP asks for.

A port sustainability plan sets out how a port will cut emissions from its operations and the tenants, vessels, trucks and trains it hosts, and protect its assets from climate hazards. You need one before large electrification or resilience investments. The RFP succeeds when it treats tenants, utilities and funders as part of the scope instead of outside audiences.

What this work should deliver

The outcome is an adopted plan with a repeatable baseline, targets the port can defend, a costed pipeline of projects, resilience priorities and a way to track progress. The Port of Redwood City’s Clean Port Plan shows the shape: measure energy use and emissions, set short-, medium- and long-term targets, assess climate and sea level rise risks, agree implementation priorities with tenants and write a workforce strategy.

The Port of Bellingham’s 2026 RFP adds rigor. It asks for up to three port-wide energy transition scenarios compared by life-cycle and techno-economic analysis, and preliminary microgrid concepts for three areas.

Keep the capital design, permitting and the annual inventory update outside this scope, though the plan should set the inventory method others will repeat. Our port director guide and ports and maritime hub cover the wider agenda.

Who this is for: port authorities, state port agencies and terminal operators with landlord or operating roles. A city writing a community-wide plan should use our climate action plan RFP guide instead. A port that only needs a public report on progress should see our guide to scoping a sustainability report.

Rules and standards to cite

Emissions methods. EPA’s Port Emissions Inventory Guidance (EPA-420-B-22-011, April 2022) sets methods for ocean-going vessels, harbor craft, recreational marine, cargo handling equipment, on-road vehicles and rail, and covers greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants and energy use. EPA’s October 2023 note says it generally still applies with the MOVES4 model.

For the port’s own buildings, fleet and purchased power, cite the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard. The two methods answer different questions, so the RFP should name both. Our Scope 3 emissions entry explains how emissions outside an organization’s direct control are counted.

Shipping context. The 2023 IMO GHG Strategy aims for net-zero international shipping emissions by or around 2050, with checkpoints of at least 20% (striving for 30%) by 2030 and at least 70% (striving for 80%) by 2040 against 2008. Vessel-side measures such as shore power and fuel bunkering should be sized to that trajectory, not to a single customer’s plans.

Voluntary verification. Green Marine rates ports, terminals and shipowners on a 1-to-5 scale, requires external verification every two years and publishes results each June. If the port participates, map the plan’s metrics to those indicators.

Federal program status (September 2026). EPA’s Clean Ports page, updated August 20, 2026, reports 51 grants for nearly $3 billion at ports in 24 states and territories, with the application period closed. MARAD’s FY2026 Port Infrastructure Development Program offered $488,628,000, with applications due June 1, 2026. Its notice, amended April 3, 2026, allows planning grants for master plans and electrification master planning tied to eligible capital projects, caps planning at 10% of funds and removed workforce development as a selection consideration. It also says shore power no longer counts automatically toward the goods-movement test; applicants must make that case.

Grant-funded procurement. When a federal grant pays for the plan, 2 CFR 200.320 requires published evaluation factors and price as a factor, except for architectural and engineering services bought by qualifications. EPA’s grantee resources include a July 2025 quality assurance project plan (QAPP) guide for Clean Ports inventory work and semi-annual progress reports, the next due January 30, 2027.

Accessibility. Under 28 CFR 35.200, a port authority that is a special district government must make posted web content, including the plan, meet WCAG 2.1 AA by April 26, 2028.

Decisions to make before you write

Which plan. Climate action, energy transition, resilience and broader sustainability plans overlap. Redwood City combined emissions, community benefit and development; Bellingham combined energy transition, resilience, workforce and engagement. Pick the combination deliberately and say what is out.

Boundary and data. Bellingham completed Scope 1 and 2 inventories for 2019, 2022 and 2023 and a limited vessel inventory for 2023, according to its 2025 inventory RFP. State what exists, who owns tenant data and whether data-sharing agreements are in place. Without tenant data, targets are guesses.

Utilities in the room. Electrification scenarios depend on grid capacity as much as on equipment cost, and EPA planning awards such as MaineDOT’s funded grid capacity analysis. Require a utility coordination task and name the utility.

Funding fit. Write the project pipeline to the programs still open. For PIDP, that means the statutory merit criteria in the FY2026 notice: safety, efficiency or reliability, economic vitality, leveraging federal funding, and port resilience. Our resilience funding strategy RFP guide covers building a broader funding plan.

Sample scope of work

Task 1. Baseline inventory and data agreements. Build a baseline others can repeat.

The Consultant shall prepare a baseline inventory of greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants and energy use following EPA’s Port Emissions Inventory Guidance for port-related mobile sources and the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard for Port-owned operations, document all methods and data sources, and draft data-sharing agreements with tenants and operators.

Task 2. Forecasts and scenarios. Compare real options.

The Consultant shall forecast energy demand and emissions under business-as-usual growth and up to three transition scenarios, and shall compare scenarios by life-cycle emissions, capital and operating cost, technology readiness and implementation risk.

Task 3. Grid and energy infrastructure. Test feasibility early.

The Consultant shall coordinate with [utility] to assess service capacity, upgrade needs and timelines for each scenario, and shall prepare conceptual designs for [number] priority sites, including shore power or microgrid options where warranted.

Task 4. Resilience assessment. Protect what the plan builds against sea level rise and other hazards.

The Consultant shall assess exposure and vulnerability of critical Port assets and energy systems to flooding, sea level rise, heat and storms, and shall integrate resilience measures into each project in the pipeline.

Task 5. Tenant, workforce and community engagement. Engage at decision points.

The Consultant shall prepare and carry out an engagement plan for tenants, operators, labor and workforce partners, and near-port communities, with input sessions timed to the baseline, draft targets and draft plan, and shall document how input changed the plan.

Task 6. Targets and implementation plan. Turn analysis into a pipeline.

The Consultant shall recommend short-, medium- and long-term targets and a costed implementation plan listing each project’s cost, emissions and resilience benefits, responsible party, schedule and candidate funding sources, with metrics for annual tracking.

Task 7. Grant compliance and adoption. Keep the funder satisfied and the board informed.

The Consultant shall prepare any quality assurance project plan and progress reports the funding agency requires, present the draft plan for public comment and deliver a final plan in accessible formats for Board adoption.

Deliverables to require

• Baseline inventory report, data files and a written method others can repeat.
• Tenant and operator data-sharing agreements, or a record of what was refused.
• Forecast and scenario analysis with cost and emissions comparisons.
• Utility capacity findings and conceptual site designs.
• Resilience assessment of critical assets.
• Engagement plan and a summary of input and responses.
• Draft and final plan with targets, a costed project pipeline and a funding matrix.
• Metrics and a tracking template for annual updates.
• Grant compliance documents (QAPP, progress reports) where required.
• A public summary. The Utah Inland Port Authority’s Clean Ports page lists a publicly available summary of planning results among its outputs.

How to evaluate proposals

For a published comparison, the Port of Bellingham scored 50 points for team qualifications and experience, 25 for project approach (including whether cost fit the grant budget) and 25 for ability to perform. Ask how the team will staff in-person workshops, and do not score office location. Under federal awards, 2 CFR 200.320 requires price as a factor for planning services that are not architectural or engineering work.

Timeline

Sources: the Redwood City plan page and the Bellingham RFP. EPA expects Clean Ports projects to take three to four years to implement, so a grant-funded plan has time for engagement at every milestone.

Budget and cost drivers

EPA’s 26 Clean Ports planning grants totaled $53 million. Awards ranged from $300,000 for Broward County’s update of the Port Everglades inventory to $3 million each for recipients including the Northwest Seaport Alliance, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority.

Inside Bellingham’s $1,525,892 grant, the amended budget gives $576,407 to one consolidated consultant contract, $750,000 to a subaward with the National Lab of the Rockies for vessel, equipment and shore power analysis, and $16,000 to a three-year online engagement platform. The port also budgets its project manager at 16 hours a week for 156 weeks, a reminder that the buyer’s own staff time is a real cost.

What moves cost:

• Terminals, tenants and sectors. Each additional terminal and mobile source sector adds data collection.
• Scenario depth. Life-cycle and techno-economic comparison costs more than a qualitative options list.
• Site designs. Microgrid or shore power concepts at several sites add engineering.
• Resilience analysis. Asset-level modeling costs more than a screening review.
• Engagement. Multiple audiences, languages and meetings at each milestone.
• Grant compliance. QAPPs, semi-annual reports and invoice documentation take staff time.
• Partners. National laboratories or universities can do analysis a consultant would otherwise price.

Red flags in proposals

• An inventory limited to Port-owned sources, with no plan for tenants, vessels or trucks.
• Targets set before any cost or technology-readiness analysis.
• Electrification scenarios with no utility coordination task.
• A funding strategy built on closed programs, or project sheets that ignore PIDP’s merit criteria.
• No experience with quality assurance project plans on grant-funded inventory work.
• Engagement reduced to one public meeting at the end.
• An inventory method the port cannot repeat without the consultant.

For engagement design, see our stakeholder engagement plan RFP guide and our guide to engaging port stakeholders in resilience planning. For infrastructure options, see our guide to designing green port infrastructure.

How we'd approach it

In our work with the Maryland Port Administration, stakeholder strategy around dredged material depended on public understanding as much as on engineering, and the iMPAct Reports documented the channel maintenance system’s environmental and economic impacts across five jurisdictions. We would bring tenants, the utility and near-port neighbors in at the baseline stage, because a plan they first see in draft is a plan they will contest.